Related articles

And crucially – to use that horrible X Factor phrase – they “owned it”. They were strong, these women. Totally capable of looking after themselves. Never victims.

Judy Finnigan

Because Mamma Mia is the ultimate antidote to political correctness. The three women at the centre of the film, Donna and her Dynamos, aka Meryl Streep, Julie Walters and the wonderful Christine Baranski, are like women used to be.

Sexually harass those three? You could try but any bloke who did would get a thick ear and a swift kick to the groin.

The story, for the infinitesimally small number of women who haven’t seen it, is about Donna’s 20-year-old daughter Sophie, who’s getting married at her mother’s decrepit but picturesque hotel on a Greek island.

Sophie wants to invite her dad but has no idea who he is.

So, unknown to her mum, she asks all three possible candidates – Pierce Brosnan, Colin Firth and Stellan Skarsgard – who each had a fling (or a “….” as Donna writes in her ancient diary) with Sophie’s mother 21 years ago.

PH

It was the blokes who were at the mercy of the Dynamos - the women were in charge

The thing is, Donna, Rosie and Tanya are now middle-aged broads but remember their promiscuous pasts with tremendous panache and affection.

None of them believe they were ever taken advantage of by the numerous blokes they slept with in their raunchy youth. The way they describe it, they had a wonderful time.

And crucially – to use that horrible X Factor phrase – they “owned it”. They were strong, these women. Totally capable of looking after themselves. Never victims.

If anything it was the blokes who were at their mercy and command. The Dynamos were in charge.

I positively glow with optimism by the end of Mamma Mia.

This is how modern women used to be. Handling everything life threw at them – including clumsy passes – and, crucially they had a great time.

I’m talking about the ’60s and ’70s.

How sad that now well into the 21st century women see men as enemies rather than gorgeous, sexy and adventurous friends.

--------------------------------------

Another nutty Corbyn soundbite

R: With so much attention on bloody Brexit (I refer of course to the brutal hand-to-hand political in-fighting on the subject) and Theresa May’s leadership, quite a lot of Corbyn claptrap is slipping under the radar these days.

Which is a pity because it means Jezza’s getting away with a load of old Harry.

On Sunday he told Andrew Marr that the state should seize around 8,000 empty properties and give them to the homeless.

Like many Corbyn pronouncements this one has a certain facile appeal. It does seem unjust that people are sleeping rough under the windows of continuously empty flats and houses. But hang on. These properties would have to be paid for. By you and me.

How would that make a young couple struggling to get on the housing ladder feel?

GETTY

Corbyn's homeless pledge is nuts

They might well be astonished and angry that their taxes should be used to give free homes to rough sleepers while they themselves struggle to save for the down-payment on a mortgage.

And who would get these gratis flats and houses? It’s estimated there are around 6,000 rough sleepers in the UK, at least a quarter of them in London.

About a fifth of them are foreign nationals who came here looking for work and couldn’t get it. Others are exprisoners, or have issues with drugs, drink, or mental health.

A surprising number actually choose to sleep on the streets, shunning the support system of hostels, volunteer workers and food banks. I

t’s a very complicated picture but Corbyn doesn’t do complicated. Just easy, simplistic solutions.

Take the situation in the capital. London property prices are the highest in Britain. The cost of giving free homes to around 1,500 rough sleepers would be astronomical.

And anyway, would each homeless person get their own property, or would they have to share? And who would pay for insurance, heat and lighting, repairs, council tax, furniture?

I am patron of one of our leading homeless charities and believe we should do all we can to get people off the street, under a roof and if possible into a job.

But leapfrogging them over hard-working people who struggle to pay their rent or mortgage, or save for a deposit, is just loopy. Voters simply wouldn’t wear it.

But hey, it made for a good soundbite on a Sunday morning.

--------------------------------------

Bin this fine for a 'rubbish' offence

BRIGHTON NEWS

Alison Mapletoft should never have been fined

J: My blood boiled when I read about Alison Mapletoft, 39, pictured below, who was issued with a £600 fine after she put a cardboard box in the wrong bin.

Alison was “caught” putting a single piece of rubbish (a parcel addressed to her) into a communal recycling bin. Although the bin is owned by Brighton and Hove City Council they employ a private company to go through the waste.

These greedy bullies called 3GS told Alison by phone that if she didn’t pay up she could be taken to court and face a £2,500 fine or even a prison sentence.

For one lousy cardboard box! These threatening tactics are outrageous. But Alison’s treatment is increasingly common.

More and more councils are employing “litter police” to issue fixed penalties for the most minor of infringements.

GETTY (STOCK)

Draconian fines for recycling mistakes are awful

Alison runs a small business from home making scarves and cushions. She’s hardly a multi-million pound corporation fly-tipping nuclear waste.

We really shouldn’t let these 21st century robber barons get away with it. 3GS keeps 60 per cent of every fine they impose but in other parts of the country some private firms retain 100 per cent.

It’s a scam, an obvious way of getting money for old rope (or cardboard) and totally disproportionate to the so-called “offence” committed.

It’s also deeply unfair on people such as Alison, who work hard for not much reward.

Councils should be encouraging small businesses, not making life expensively impossible for them.

--------------------------------------

Very fortunate Emilia

WIREIMAGE

Perhaps the formaldehyde helps Emilia look fab

R: Forensics crime drama Silent Witness is on cracking form at the minute.

We record the two-part episodes on Mondays and Tuesdays and then watch them back-to-back with a nice chilled glass or three of Sancerre.

Very civilised. Quite a few of my men friends have admitted to having a bit of a thing for the star of the show, Emilia Fox, who plays Dr Nikki Alexander.

Emilia, 43, is one of those fortunate women who manage to look better and better as the years slip by. Maybe it’s working with all that formaldehyde.

--------------------------------------

You're only as old as you feel

GETTY

Sitting on a Cornish beach is a pleasure for Judy

J: The first of the expected new Madeley brood duly arrived two weeks ago. She’s called Edith Rose, is pretty as a picture and already the apple of her five-year-old sister Ivy’s eye.

So, two grandchildren now and another arriving this summer. Not to mention yet more sprogs on the way in the extended family.

As well as having babies, all the younger generation of our family are getting engaged or married. It’s lovely but, good grief, it makes you feel old.

I know all grandmothers think like this but honestly – if I sit on our local beach watching the unchanging Cornish ocean washing the rocks I could swear I was still 30.

Sigh. Not that I’m complaining. I actually feel I’m the luckiest woman in the world.

--------------------------------------

There's a simple way to pay

GETTY

Lord Hall should ask Richard for advice

R: The BBC has got itself into a frightful mess about pay. The differential between what men and women earn is staggering – did you know the pay gap was so wide?

I work in the media and I didn’t have a clue. Maybe that’s because my wife and I always earned the same, penny for penny, when we were presenting TV shows together.

It wasn’t even an issue that needed discussing. But the Beeb’s attempts to rectify thousands of blatant injustices is cack-handed at best.

It’s not enough to ask a handful of blokes to take a pay cut, and dole out a few token rises to women.

There’s been much talk about “like for like” comparisons but they simply don’t work.

Example: a relatively young and inexperienced man is presenting a radio station’s drive time show. Let’s say he’s not doing a great job of it and the bosses invite an older, much more experienced host to take over.

Same job but the older guy would reasonably expect to earn more than the goofy kid did. Now flip the kid’s gender.

He’s a she. Still fair for the older man to earn more? Gets complicated, doesn’t it? I’d suggest a relatively simple pay structure could be put in place which would be 100 per cent gender blind.

GETTY

The only fair pay scale would reward stars like Chris Evans for ratings

TV and radio hosts would be paid on a sliding scale according to performance and results. Performance would be measured by an AAI (audience appreciation index) – they use them all the time at Radio 2 where I work – which reveals how much listeners and viewers like a show and its host.

Results are of course judged by ratings. That means radio breakfast shows like Chris Evans’s and peak-time news and magazine programmes on TV would pay the best wages, off-peak shows less, but everyone could pick up a bonus for a good AAI.

I can’t see any holes in this. Beleaguered Beeb boss Lord Tony Hall can have that one for free on me.

--------------------------------------

A novel excuse

R: I’ve finally knuckled down to writing my fourth novel, Follow Me.

The excuses writers find for putting it off. Two men are sitting on a park bench.

One says: “Fancy bumping into each other – it’s been years! What are you up to these days?”